That's moving the goalposts, and inaccurate to boot.
Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?
- Thread starter SpaceLama
- Start date
I provided three links and could have much more regarding the science behind the show.
As for asteroid mining, the goals that I have read are to supply cities in space. As part of that, there is a need to physically analyze the asteroid and have a sense for the best way to harvest its resources. As part of that, some of it will involve humans going out there. That's the nature of humanity, often very stupid. From what I read, there are other companies who are looking at different facets, including human miners. It's currently still a work in progress, so the idea that it can predicted in any meaningful way is, at best, guesswork.
But, Star Trek gets science wrong all the time and people are still entertained by it. Not sure why the Expanse suffers so harshly when it at least works on the basis of current science and speculates towards the future.
Such as what? The basis of Star Trek is a United Earth building a faster than light engine. Right now, that's an insurmountable problem with the light speed barrier.
There are also a huge amount of aliens who all look like humans. Again, odds are not good for that according to contemporary evolutionary theory.
Resources are nearly unlimited-a post scarcity world. Interesting to explore, but realistic? Well, possibly, given that in Trek history there are two massive wars that left many dead.
Dude, that's not true. Isolinear gravametric tetryon arrays are totally a thing. I know. I have one. I made it out of aluminum foil, cardboard, and straw. Oh. And Dixie Cups. Gotta have Dixie Cups.But, Star Trek gets science wrong all the time and people are still entertained by it. Not sure why the Expanse suffers so harshly when it at least works on the basis of current science and speculates towards the future.
I'm always the last to know. Stupid outdated technology.
Some folks have a different standard for Star Trek, well, for the Star Trek they like. As the Abrams films have demonstrated.
The point is that going as far back as 10 years ago, we had a very good idea of how asteroid mining is going to look like, from both a business perspective and the physical extraction, processing and utilization. There are now two large corporations investing millions of dollars and actually sending prospecting probes out. To get this one central part of this show so wrong is unacceptable. The writers didn't even need to guess what it will look like, it's out there, they just had to google it and it's this kind of laziness is deplorable in modern Science Fiction.
But, Star Trek gets science wrong all the time and people are still entertained by it. Not sure why the Expanse suffers so harshly when it at least works on the basis of current science and speculates towards the future.
I'm the first one to point out all the flaws of Star Trek and how it came short of being a perfect Sci Fi show, while it certainly had the potential to be just that. However, Star Trek, in its essence, is plausible. You need to stretch some theories and often arrive at unlikely scenarios, but it's not fantasy. The Expanse is not plausible. There's just noway that after we colonize the Solar System there'll be manual labor workers working in the Asteroid Belt. I can see someone make this projection maybe 60 years ago, but in 2011? Pathetic.
Not exactly, the concept of a warp drive is similar to a quantum vacuum thruster based on Zero-point energy mechanics. Harold White's 2013 NASA report called Warp Field Physics provided some early clues into how space-time can be contracted to reach an effective velocity exceeding that of lightspeed, while still remaining true to our understanding of relativity. The ship itself does not exceed lightspeed while contracting space in front of it makes it fall quicker than the said velocity.
I haven't come across any serious projections of when this could be achieved, although it's certainly calculable based on the energy it requires and whether the solar system is capable of providing us with the needed quantities. Early concepts from the 90s did postulate a need for beyond astronomic quantities of energy required, White's report, as far as I remember, puts the requirements at a more attainable range. In any case, it's not a completely implausible concept.
I do have a problem with this, but there's also a plausible explanation. As humans, we may not be capable of comprehending the reality of beings that are ahead of us in intelligence and development, much like wild animals can successfully functions within their environment, but not comprehend the reality of their circumstances as it relates to their relationship to humans. The idea, therefore, is that when humans do sail out into the vastness of interstellar space, we'll only meet aliens that are at exactly the same level of development as we are or below us, just because we wouldn't be able to comprehend species that are above us. It's a stretch, to say the least, that we'll encounter so many species that are almost exactly like we are: vulcans, klingons, andorians, romulans, etc. since the galaxy is over 13 billions years old and being even 100 years ahead of us would make normal interactions as depicted in ST almost impossible. This is one of the reasons why I find episodes dealing with these human-like aliens as least interesting, but Star Trek also offers a great variety of more realistic encounters.
As to whether any aliens would evolve to be humanoid or not, honestly - doesn't quite bother me, these are clearly just make-up restrictions and the shortage of any alien actors to choose from. I do think that with the advanced CGI effects that we have no, writers should be more bold with depicting that have nothing in common with humans in appearance and essence.
Actually, that is the promise of asteroid mining - virtually unlimited resources, extremely cheap space constructions of astronomic proportions. The extraction and processing and subsequent 3D printing of structures in space is going to be cheap, relatively effortless and result in us being able to build ships, cities, bases in space on a truly "Ring World" scale. The economics, however, of these undertakings are more difficult to predict than the actual end-results.
Last edited:
Yes, which is why a 2014 article that I read about asteroid mining talked about human workers?
Sorry, I feel this is two different standards applied to fiction and that a base premise of the expanse is more realistic than Star Trek. Star Trek doesn't deserve a pass because its older, or because the Expanse is newer. The concept is to "speculate" as to the potential consequences of developing new tech and putting humans in new places. As a friend of mind put it, in a work of fiction you get "one magic bean" that you can use to set up your world. Human workers is that magic bean apparently, and the premise bears out from there, with a lot of scientific foundations for the rest of the world. Same thing with warp drive or transporters.
But, again, the Expanse should be let know that their writing team is pathetic. Here's the contact information:
Syfy Channel Feedback
Authors answer questions
I don't see the point in reading editorials on this show written by amateurs who are not involved in any studies concerning asteroid mining or futurism or space exploration in general. The opinions published in the quoted tabloids are as void as those of the writers of The Expanse.
I don't cut any slack to Star Trek because of its age, I praise it for more realism than all these crappy sci fi shows of the last 10 years were able to produce. We have a contrasting opinion on Science Fiction, I don't think one magic bean is a key to a good story, rather than hard inquisitive work of a true futurist, such as Jules Verne. There are plenty of resources out there for Sci Fi writers to take advantage of, such as Physics of the Future: The World in 2100 by Michio Kaku - https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Futu...0114808&sr=8-1&keywords=Physics+Of+The+Future
Or the countless publications by Ray Kurzweil, such as The Signularity is Near - https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-...HDS_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490114887&sr=1-1
And if you're doing a story on asteroid minding, why not consult any number of publications made on the subject by inventors and scientists, as well as investors in this field. For instance, Abundance by Peter Diamandis - https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Fu...4961&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=asteroid+diamandis
There are very few actual good Science Fiction stories out there, but one must at the very least establish a minimum baseline of quality. The Expanse does not pass this minimal threshold. I'm not going to write to them about how lazy their premise is, they've created content that appears to have found its demand and entertains its viewers. Live and let live.
I don't cut any slack to Star Trek because of its age, I praise it for more realism than all these crappy sci fi shows of the last 10 years were able to produce. We have a contrasting opinion on Science Fiction, I don't think one magic bean is a key to a good story, rather than hard inquisitive work of a true futurist, such as Jules Verne. There are plenty of resources out there for Sci Fi writers to take advantage of, such as Physics of the Future: The World in 2100 by Michio Kaku - https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Futu...0114808&sr=8-1&keywords=Physics+Of+The+Future
Or the countless publications by Ray Kurzweil, such as The Signularity is Near - https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-...HDS_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490114887&sr=1-1
And if you're doing a story on asteroid minding, why not consult any number of publications made on the subject by inventors and scientists, as well as investors in this field. For instance, Abundance by Peter Diamandis - https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Fu...4961&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=asteroid+diamandis
There are very few actual good Science Fiction stories out there, but one must at the very least establish a minimum baseline of quality. The Expanse does not pass this minimal threshold. I'm not going to write to them about how lazy their premise is, they've created content that appears to have found its demand and entertains its viewers. Live and let live.
Then why complain about it? If it is creating an entertainment demand then why be so hostile towards it's possible influence on a new Star Trek series?
Also, please note that I did not link to any "editorials" or amateur views. I simply commented on my research. You're welcome to your opinion but please do not infer my state of mind or research.
Also, please note that I did not link to any "editorials" or amateur views. I simply commented on my research. You're welcome to your opinion but please do not infer my state of mind or research.
Fair enough.
My larger point remains that Star Trek's premise is already set, and it was good for the science of the time, but there is a lot more implausible in that premise now than in the Expanse.
Secondly, as much as I respect experts in the field, "The Expanse" has been recognized by a Physics Today for its work, hardly an editorial or uniformed publication. Also, NASA has speculated on the possibility of human missions to mine asteroids. Again, not an uniformed source. It's speculative right now, but
Finally, again with due respect to the experts in the appropriate fields, there was a time megabytes of data storage was imagined to be the maximum that private individuals would need. The idea that 100% accuracy about the future of asteroid mining or human activity in space can be predicted is ridiculous on its face.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think "The Expanse" is the pinnacle of science fiction, nor do I have any dog in the fight of it succeeding or failing. Like other science fiction works, it gets some things right and gets some wrong. I also don't think Discovery should follow the Expanse mold. I think Discovery should do its own thing.
My larger point remains that Star Trek's premise is already set, and it was good for the science of the time, but there is a lot more implausible in that premise now than in the Expanse.
Secondly, as much as I respect experts in the field, "The Expanse" has been recognized by a Physics Today for its work, hardly an editorial or uniformed publication. Also, NASA has speculated on the possibility of human missions to mine asteroids. Again, not an uniformed source. It's speculative right now, but
Finally, again with due respect to the experts in the appropriate fields, there was a time megabytes of data storage was imagined to be the maximum that private individuals would need. The idea that 100% accuracy about the future of asteroid mining or human activity in space can be predicted is ridiculous on its face.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think "The Expanse" is the pinnacle of science fiction, nor do I have any dog in the fight of it succeeding or failing. Like other science fiction works, it gets some things right and gets some wrong. I also don't think Discovery should follow the Expanse mold. I think Discovery should do its own thing.
Jesus.
Of COURSE the Expanse looks superficially more realistic than any Star Trek series. IT WAS MADE 10 YEARS AFTER THE LAST STAR TREK SHOW.
You know? Star Trek: Enterprise looked much more realistic than TNG. TNG looked more realistic than Space:1999. Which looked more realistic than TOS. Time moves on. When DS9 was on the air, showing a wormhole as a literal blue "hole" in space was top-notch. Now we had Interstellar, and every movie that doesn't depict a wormhole more realistic now is outdated. I hold Star Trek 09 to a much different standard for realism than ST: The motion picture.
That doesn't change the fact that "the Expanse" is freakin' unrealistic. Because it's a tv-show. It's realistic to a degree, up until it hurts the narrative. That degree is already much better than in older science fiction shows - say from 10 years ago, and I'm extremely happy with this development. I was extremely happy to see space depicted as silent in Firefly. I was super happy to see realistic Newtonian fight and flight in Battlestar Galactica. That doesn't mean both those shows weren't also fucking unrealistic at times.
The Expanse tries to be mostly realistic for it's setting and premise. And I applaud that. But the realism mostly comes from the limited setting (metallic corridors filled with humans). As soon as the more outlandish things start - space battles for example - it drops the ball fucking hard. Laughably at times. Which is still an advancement from older sci-fi shows like B5. Compared to Star Trek though? It only seems more realistic because they don't use some basic sci-fi stables like "aliens" and "regular interstellar travel", which are pretty integral to the Star Trek lore. As soon as those will be integrated, the "realism" will fall back to "current space-opera level" of realism.
Star Trek Discovery will have to be much more realistic than previous Trek as well to hold up. But that doesn't mean The Expanse is "more" or "less" realistic than Star Trek. In fact what I saw was sometimes top-notch, other times fucking laughable. Exactly the same as with Trek.
Of COURSE the Expanse looks superficially more realistic than any Star Trek series. IT WAS MADE 10 YEARS AFTER THE LAST STAR TREK SHOW.
You know? Star Trek: Enterprise looked much more realistic than TNG. TNG looked more realistic than Space:1999. Which looked more realistic than TOS. Time moves on. When DS9 was on the air, showing a wormhole as a literal blue "hole" in space was top-notch. Now we had Interstellar, and every movie that doesn't depict a wormhole more realistic now is outdated. I hold Star Trek 09 to a much different standard for realism than ST: The motion picture.
That doesn't change the fact that "the Expanse" is freakin' unrealistic. Because it's a tv-show. It's realistic to a degree, up until it hurts the narrative. That degree is already much better than in older science fiction shows - say from 10 years ago, and I'm extremely happy with this development. I was extremely happy to see space depicted as silent in Firefly. I was super happy to see realistic Newtonian fight and flight in Battlestar Galactica. That doesn't mean both those shows weren't also fucking unrealistic at times.
The Expanse tries to be mostly realistic for it's setting and premise. And I applaud that. But the realism mostly comes from the limited setting (metallic corridors filled with humans). As soon as the more outlandish things start - space battles for example - it drops the ball fucking hard. Laughably at times. Which is still an advancement from older sci-fi shows like B5. Compared to Star Trek though? It only seems more realistic because they don't use some basic sci-fi stables like "aliens" and "regular interstellar travel", which are pretty integral to the Star Trek lore. As soon as those will be integrated, the "realism" will fall back to "current space-opera level" of realism.
Star Trek Discovery will have to be much more realistic than previous Trek as well to hold up. But that doesn't mean The Expanse is "more" or "less" realistic than Star Trek. In fact what I saw was sometimes top-notch, other times fucking laughable. Exactly the same as with Trek.
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with these points, but I think it's time to drop this. Live long and prosper.
Then they need not to pay too much attention to older fans or those of us who take the whole thing too seriously.
Peace and long life. My PM box is always open to discussion.
I agreed with everything else you had to say, but to suggest that Space: 1999 looked more realistic than TOS is just going too danged far. :P
I watched a space battle from The Expanse on Youtube the other evening. It was about a thousand times more plausible than anything in Star Wars or Star Trek, though the rendering was not nearly as sophisticated.
Don't think it'd sell a lot of popcorn as the climax of a skiffy movie, though.
Don't think it'd sell a lot of popcorn as the climax of a skiffy movie, though.
Okay, this is where I have to disagree with you. Here is a clip of a space battle in the Expanse:
First of all: That is a dang good space battle! It looks glorious. It is directed beautifully. And most importantly, it has it's own style that seperates itself from other sci-fi shows (like Star Trek or Wars), all whle being unique and internally consistent with the rules of the Expanse universe.
That being said: It isn't necessarily more realistic than the space battle Kirk fought against the Romulans in "Balance of Terror".
That might seem odd at first. Because it certainly looks more realistic. But again: That mostly depends on how you define "realistic". Part of what makes this battle look "real" is that it uses mostly grounded stuff: There are no aliens on board. There are no Lasers. No Photon torpedoes. The weapons are good old rockets and guns. And the production value is "modern looking metallic spaceship". But: All those things are grossly mishandeled from a physics point of view. Rockets (er even bullets) don't move like that in space. The main issues with orbit mechanics aren't even considered. Relative and relativistic speeds aren't accounted for. The debris the ship that flies through has realistically more kinetic energy than the bullets fired that go through the bridge. They want to do both dog fights AND "capital ships firing rounds at each other" - which are two completely opposing and super incompatible variants of space battles which would require completely different types of starship designs and battle rules. Piloting a ship as depicted would be both physically and physiologically impossible. All in all, these scenes look realistic, but by all accounts are 100% fictional whish-fullfillment. Like all space battles.
Now look at Kirks battle in "Balance of Terror": First of all it needs you to accept a lot of outlandish ideas. Aliens. Phasers. Shields. Artificial gravity. None of those are impossible though (except for maybe artificial gravity). But when they're shown, they are depicted much more realistic: The spaceships are much further apart from each other - as they would realistically be - even ghough that's mostly a result of vfx not being able to show two ships at the same time. The (hypothetical) technology is applied correctly: Phaser-beams travel at the speed of light, photon torpedoes take their time, but still move faster than the massive enemy ship can do "dodging" manoevers. The ships keep their distances, artificial gravity works as conter-measure for fast manoevers - which are depicted at a realistic pace. And the environment (asteroids, comets and stuff) is realistically shown (well, talked about) in the vast space of ...space, setting both the emptiness of space, the time to scan that space, and travel times of super fast starships into the (mostly) correct ratio. It just LOOKS fucking laughable, because 60s stuff, bad vfx and sets made out of cardboard.
It also had grossly wrong depictions of physics: The starships keep "radio silence", even though sound doesn't travel in space. That's the one big physics mistake they make in this episode.
Which of those is more realistic?
It really depends. Expanse certainly looks like it: it has both modern production values, and it implements almost all of "common knowledge" people have about space stuff. It looks how people would "imagine" real space battle stuff would look like. Currently. Because it get's a lot wrong. Star Trek on the other hand needs you to accept certain "fantastical" elements like warp drive and energy shields. None of which are impossible btw. And if they do are possible, the depiction in Star Trek is mostly right.
That doesn't change the fact that both depictions, the Expanse and TOS, are WIDE off the mark. They really only work as narrative constructions. As a "real" depiction of events both are laughably wrong. One of them just looks more realistic, because it's a much better representation of current imagination about such stuff, however incomplete that might be. But that doesn't make it more "correct" or "real". It only makes it feel more real. If you were to compare it to a (good) sci-fi show in 10 or 20 years from now, it's going to look as dated as the battles in Babylon do now tough.
Still, both those examples are a freakin' delight to watch. Space battles rule!
Last edited:
The show looks like it's gonna fail after two seasons bad reviews from critics and a tepid response from the fans.
There are other sci fi shows out there that Discovery will have to compete with, if it doesn't get 10/10/10 it will fail.
There are other sci fi shows out there that Discovery will have to compete with, if it doesn't get 10/10/10 it will fail.
Similar threads
- Poll
